Chris Noe wrote:> Especially when that dependency is on an assembler which isn't even really> needed anymore because gas can do the same job today).

BTW, LILO also uses as86. Guess why - because it needs to generate 16 bitx86 code and as86 was around anyway ... (and, as your experience withbinutils suggests, actually the only choice, particularly in '92)

I'm in no hurry to change LILO to use any other assembler syntax: thereare ~2500 lines of assembler waiting for anybody attempting such aconversion to make a stupid typo which may then bite a few millionpeople. Not a good idea. (*)

(* LILO bugs tend to have more serious effects than bugs in the kernel boot code, because in the latter case, the worst-case outcome is one kernel that doesn't boot (and if you're careful, you have a second, known to be good kernel around), while in the former case, you may end up with a system that's completely unbootable.)

Regarding as86 vs. NASM vs. gas: I don't see where NASM would fit. as86does the job today, it's deployed, and it's readily understood by mostpeople who know Intel syntax. I can see some value in using gas for (atleast approximative) uniformity. But forcing a mandatory binutils updateupon people just for that seems vastly exaggerated. The story would bedifferent if there are other benefits in upgrading binutils, e.g. knownmis-compilation of kernels with older versions.

The fact that in Linux, we are not enslaved by backwards-compatibilityin the way other products are, does not mean that we need to break itat every opportunity just to prove our independence.